UN Security Council Votes 15-0 in Favor of Iraq Resolution

Good, good... an attempt to comply with internatinal law and avoid unilateral war is always nice. If it's a fundamental policy shift of the administration... that's best. If it's simply an attempt to comply with polls in which most Americans wanted international cooperation... less good.

I'd be really interested to know what the administration's contingency plan was if the UN didn't pass the resolution. It's all well and good to cooperate when you're mostly getting your way. It's another thing to follow international guidelines when you don't.

Still, I won't do Bush the disservice of automatically assuming the worst. I'm glad he got the vote, and think it was the proper step for both the administration and the UN.

Regardless of one's politics, I think it's hard not to regard Iraq as a threat to stability. We might be somewhat responsible for creating that threat... but such is irrelevant now. That's my least favorite argument of the complete doves.

 

Nobody outside of Britain likes us anyways. In my opinion, as soon as we're done mopping up Iraq, the military might as well just use Iraq as a sort of staging point for an assualt into central Europe.

 

At this point, we're all this ship together, so no matter the decision we make regarding Iraq I'll lend my support.

 

Today is a good day. I hope Iraq is peacefully disarmed.

 

I'm going to have to give another thumb's up to that sentiment.

 

Why 15-0? I thought everyone was opposed to the new resolution? Why not 10-5? Or 12-3?

Hell, I would have voted no just so the vote wouldn't be so lopsided.

 

I think those that support this resolution should be thankful to the critics of Bush.

It was only after their insistance that Bush go through the Congress and UN that he finally went.

Once he decided to go that route, Bush handled things very well, and now has the resolution. I can respect the job he's done in getting this resolution passed, but none of it would have happened if not for the critics and the backlash that persuaded him to handle things this way.

 

Bush never said that he wasn't going to, but he did take steps to have his lawyers declare legally he didn't have to go through Congress. He also tried connecting this to the war on terror which had have been covered under different UN resolutions. It wasn't until these there was a backlash from these actions that Bush finally went to the UN.

Collin Powell has been working the UN, but as many articles have pointed out, Powell was on one side in BUsh's administration and Cheney, Wolfowits, Rice, and Rumsfeld were on the other. I think that Powell is one of the critics of going it alone that helped push Bush in the direction.

Also no one(other than memebers of Bush's own administration) doubted Powell's stance, reserve, and capability in the handling of everything. People did doubt Bush's adequacy, and once he headed in the direction of dealing with the UN he did do a great job. But by steps his own administration(excpet Powell) took, it appeared that he was headed in the direction of handling things himself and possibly Great Britain being the only other ally on board.

 

A quick search will confirm that I have no problem with this resolution. It's what I, and every other critic of Bush's prior stance on Iraq, was asking for and what Bush and every supporter of his prior policy said might be nice but was unnecessary. I am very glad he changed his position.

Refman, the difference between Clinton's crime(s) and Bush's is that Clinton got caught. By overzealous prosecutors, no less. Would that Kenneth Starr had presided over the Iran-Contra hearings. Cocaine use is illegal too, as is drunk driving. We'd be hard pressed to elect a president who'd never broken the law. Reagan, with Iran-Contra, was possibly the most dangerous criminal we've ever had in the White House. And he perjured himself too, though that was tiny compared to authorizing the secret war.

Other than that, I'm staying out of it for a while, like I've said. When Pelosi starts talking, I'll likely be back to defend her "Taxifornia," uber-liberal positions. (Whatever to that, by the way. You'd think she was our Alan Keyes or Jesse Helms to read the comments on her on this site.) Speaking of which, one more thing to say here on the failing of the Dem party. Look. Liberal means left and conservative means right. I actually have respect for both sides, if not always for the representatives of those sides. And one of these sides makes more sense to me. That's all. I think most people are like that. And I think most good, honest, thinking people recognize that both sides have a strong argument on nearly every issue. So how is it that, ever since Dukakis, "liberal" is a dirty word, that it somehow conjures up dangerous radicalism, while "conservative" is the feel-good word of modern politics? Since freaking Dukakis. It is because the Democrats suck. The Democrats are supposed to stand for liberal ideals the same way Republicans stand for conservative ideals. Instead they run from the very ideas that drew them to the party and claim to subscribe to the philosophy of the other side. It's not because the conservatives have a better argument -- it is because they are p*****s. (Trader_Jorge, it's okay when I call my own people p*****s, right?)

Conservatives on this board and elsewhere can gloat all they want, as far as I'm concerned. They've earned it by standing up for their own, sometimes radical sometimes less so, ideals. The Democrats have asked for it, they have got it and they need to hear it over and over again until they grow some balls.

I will continue to underestimate Bush though, Max. He's proven nothing to me except that he is capable of giving a speech as written, being charming and being smart enough to defer any major decisions to his advisers. Nothing wrong with that, but it does nothing to defray my previous criticisms of him. I absolutely will not underestimate Rove or Cheney, though. They know what they're doing and their take no prisoners approach would be well observed by the Dems. In the meantime, while I'm being generous enough to keep underestimating Bush, you could return the favor by continuing to gloat. Thanks in advance.